Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40369405›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2025

Impact of multidimensional assessment on anti-fracture treatment decisions in patients with fragility hip fractures within a Fracture Liaison Service.

Chiara Ceolin, Stefania Sella, Cristina Simonato, Ester Bukli, Giulia Bano, Valentina Camozzi, Anna Bertocco, Marco Onofrio Torres, Alberta Cecchinato, Martin Diogo and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Chiara CeolinGeriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Stefania SellaClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Cristina SimonatoGeriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Ester BukliGeriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Giulia BanoGeriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Valentina CamozziEndocrinology Unit, Department of Medicine, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Padua, Italy.
Anna BertoccoGeriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Marco Onofrio TorresClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Alberta CecchinatoClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Martin DiogoClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Mor Peleg FalbClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Francesca GuidolinClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Maria Grazia RodàDepartment of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Oncology, D.I.S.C.O.G. Department, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Michele CannitoEndocrinology Unit, Department of Medicine, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Padua, Italy.
Antonio BerizziOrthopedics and Traumatology Unit, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Padua, Italy.
Andrea VenturinPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Padua, Italy.
Vito CianciEmergency Department, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Padua, Italy.
Elisa PalaDepartment of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Oncology, D.I.S.C.O.G. Department, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Mariachiara CerchiaroDepartment of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Oncology, D.I.S.C.O.G. Department, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Deris Gianni BoemoDepartment of Directional Hospital Management, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Padua, Italy.
Maria Vittoria NesotiDepartment of Directional Hospital Management, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Padua, Italy.
Gaetano Paride ArcidiaconoClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy. gaetano.arcidiacono@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0409-4449
Paolo SimioniClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Pietro RuggieriDepartment of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Oncology, D.I.S.C.O.G. Department, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Giuseppe SergiGeriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Sandro GianniniClinica Medica 1, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, 35128, Italy.
Marina De RuiGeriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Hip-POS working group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoporosis is a chronic condition characterized by increased fracture risk. Fragility fractures, especially hip fractures, represent a significant health and economic burden due to population aging. Despite the efficacy of approved treatments in lowering fracture recurrence, post-fracture treatment rates remain suboptimal. To address these issues, various post-fracture care programs, including Fracture Liaison Services (FLS), have been implemented worldwide. While FLS models effectively reduce refracture risk and maintain cost-effectiveness, it is unclear if these benefits apply equally to all patients, especially those with higher comorbidities and reduced functional capacity, who may face worse prognoses. This study aimed to identify the primary factors influencing anti-fracture therapy decisions in older patients with fragility fractures, using a multidimensional geriatric assessment approach integrated into our FLS program.

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients aged 65 and above with hip fractures admitted to Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova. Patients were categorized based on anti-fracture treatment (bisphosphonates, Denosumab, anabolic agents) or calcium/vitamin D supplements only. Clinical data, including the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) and its components, were collected. Statistical comparisons between treated and untreated groups were made, and a CHAID decision tree was used to explore decision-influencing factors.

resultsThe study included 493 patients (average age 84.7 years, 71.8% female). Patients receiving anti-fracture treatment were notably younger, with only 11.2% classified as MPI class 3 (severe prognosis) compared to 60.8% of untreated patients (p < 0.001). Among treated patients (n = 427), 75.3% received bisphosphonates, 7.3% Denosumab, and 2.2% anabolic agents. The CHAID decision tree highlighted MPI class as the primary determinant of treatment, with functional autonomy (Instrumental Activity of Daily Living or IADL) and cognitive status as subsequent factors, leading to an overall prediction accuracy of 70%.

conclusionThe integration of the MPI into multidisciplinary taking care of old patients with hip fractures may provide a structured approach for individualizing treatment decisions, considering aspects such as prognosis, functional autonomy, and cognitive status. Further studies are needed to validate the long-term outcomes of this approach.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingGeriatric AssessmentHip FracturesOsteoporotic FracturesAgedAged, 80 and overBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonatesFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonatesComprehensive geriatric assessmentFracture liaison serviceFragility hip fracturesMultidimensional prognostic index

Identifiers

PMID40369405
PMCPMC12076819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.